My Fellow Screen Actors Guild Members,Yesterday, on January 26th, a slim majority of our National Board voted to fire our National Executive Director and Chief Negotiator, Doug Allen. This was not accomplished in a face-to-face Board meeting, where the significant minority would have had an opportunity to voice its opinion and where Mr. Allen would have had a chance to face his accusers and address their concerns. Instead, this drastic action was accomplished by “written assent”, the most undemocratic provision allowed by our Constitution.

As your twice-elected National President, I feel that it is my responsibility to give you my perspective on yesterday’s events, although my ability to do so is somewhat limited. The same majority, 52.52%, that fired Mr. Allen also voted to change our Board policy that designated the National President to be one of the official spokespeople for the Guild. As of yesterday, the only two people who are permitted to officially speak for Screen Actors Guild are our newly appointed interim NED, David White, and John McGuire, our Senior Advisor from New York. The members now have no official voice. I appreciate the fact that Mr. White thinks it is preposterous to silence a duly elected national officer, and so has permitted me this forum, provided I inform you that what I am about to write represents my opinion. However, although I am not writing on behalf of the Guild, I believe I do speak for the nearly 48% percent of the Board who are deeply concerned about what was done yesterday and about how these changes were accomplished.

Many of us believe that Doug Allen was fired because he was simply too good, too strong, and too much a unionist. His greatest sin was in challenging the idea that we be bound by the concept of “pattern bargaining”, under which actors have been disadvantaged for decades. Doug gave us the courage to accept the fact that we had a legal right to pursue an agreement that addressed the specific needs of actors; that it is unreasonable to think that the DGA or WGA, without asking any questions pertaining to actors’ participation in “new media”, could strike a deal that would adequately address the concerns of our 120,000 members and the diverse nature and needs of a membership that includes middle class actors, background actors, stunt performers, singers, dancers and our biggest stars. I, and the majority of our negotiating committee, were amazed by Doug’s skill as a negotiator and team leader, and by his diigence and breadth of knowledge. We were profoundly moved by his love for and dedication to actors.

I have no doubt that, if our Board had demonstrated any solidarity whatsoever, Doug and our committee would have arrived at an acceptable deal some time ago. Instead, members of that Board engaged in a systematic effort to sabotage these negotiations by passing motions that prescribed courses of action, and then repudiating those motions, thereby throwing our leadership into a state of chaos and our membership into a state of confusion. This was done consistently and, I believe, intentionally, so that our progressive leadership would be made to appear inept, which would pave the way towards a return to the go-along-to-get-along days of yore.

Now there is a new lead negotiator in the person of John T. McGuire. Our Negotiating Committee has been replaced by a new, more moderate Task Force. You can expect that not long after this new team enters the Bargaining Room, they will be offered some “plum”, some concession from the AMPTP that was said, heretofore, to be unattainable. This will be given by our employers, not as an act of good will, but as a demonstration of the fact that “reasonableness” will be rewarded, while “militancy” will be punished. Make no mistake, if this should occur, if there is any gain made, or if we are ultimately able to resist one of the massive roll backs that has been demanded, it will not be due to the skill of this new “negotiating team”. Anything that is won from this point forward will still be the result of the enormously hard work put in by Doug Allen and the majority of the negotiating team that has been in place since our W and W caucuses began a year ago this February. I am enormously proud of that team, led by Doug , of which I was a member.

We were able to change the discussion about these existing deals from the obfuscatory claims that they were somehow “groundbreaking” to a sobering dialogue, illuminating just how damaging these new media deals might be to the prospects of a middle class actor’s ability to make a living.

You should know that the ability to get things accomplished by “written assent” was also available to the progressive leadership that held the majority in the Boardroom prior to the most recent election. That Draconian option was never employed, however. Despite what has been said about that majority, they always made democracy their highest priority. They understood that a slim majority of 52% or 53 % gave no one the right to ride roughshod over a significant minority; they understood what the use of such a tactic would do to democracy in our union; they never desired to open that Pandora’s Box. Unfortunately, now it has been opened and precedent has been set. I, and the previous Board majority, have always been willing to compromise on any issue. Compromise is the way things get accomplished in a contentious democracy such as ours. To date, I have not been approached by a single Board member from New York, the RBD, or from the ironically named slate “Unite for Strength”, to try and find common ground on any issue. If these elected officials desire to move forward in any significant way in the name of the members, this behavior must change.

In unity,
Alan Rosenberg

103 Comments

Todd Waring • on Jan 27, 2009 5:31 pm

Does the ‘Non-Disparagement Agreement’ extend to those disparaging their *own* union?

local 399 member • on Jan 27, 2009 5:43 pm

After the 30 hour circus that rosenburg led a few weeks ago he has no room to talk about democratic procedures. The negotiations with the AMPTP should never have dragged on for 7 months. A strike authorization should have been in hand when the negotiations started, not 7 months later after the defacto strike SAG caused drove the entire industry into near poverty. Hopefully a fair deal will be reached without much delay so the entire industry can weather this huge economic recession we’re in.

Interested Observer • on Jan 27, 2009 5:51 pm

Rosenberg is right. The Pandora’s Box has been opened. Sad to see such a great union go down the drain.

What • on Jan 27, 2009 5:51 pm

Wait … didn’t Rosenberg filibuster for 30 hours to prevent the in person vote that he is now complaining did not happen?

Embarrassed • on Jan 27, 2009 5:57 pm

If Rosenberg can’t get beyond the in-fighting and bickering, he should step down. This is truly embarrassing and entirely unacceptable. Lead the entire membership and stop with the petty politics already.

No Wonder • on Jan 27, 2009 6:00 pm

Its is no wonder to me that both Dougs couldnt get anything done. They believe that 53% is not a majority. They believe that 53% is undemocratic. He believes that 48% of the membership supports him although he as never taken that vote-how would he know? Its just his guess. He has never given the membership the CHANCE to even vote on the presented contract.

He believes that the majority never attempted to confront the minority. They did and were filibustered. Is a filibuster draconian?

Doug,
Is there anything illegal here?-NO
Is there anything undemocratic here? -NO the majority has cast its vote.
Is there anything “unrepresentative” about this?-NO the elected representatives have voted and a majority decision was made.

Doug I am afraid to say that your childlike antics are over. We will democratically vote you out next.

CTSadler • on Jan 27, 2009 6:12 pm

Doug Allen was too good, too strong, to get any kind of movement towards any sort of resolution in seven months.

al r • on Jan 27, 2009 6:16 pm

Why is our president being surpressed by this coupe like this. How dare you Mr. White. Our president should be able to say whatever he whats without being “allowed” by these thieves. I will be voting these people out of thier elected offices as soon as possible.

Dear Unite for Strength-ers,
If you listen to nothing else please heed the last sentence of OUR PRESIDENT’s letter.
“If these elected officials desire to move forward in any significant way in the name of the members, this behavior must change.”
Otherwise the divide between us will only grow larger.

Koo Day Tot • on Jan 27, 2009 6:22 pm

There is nothing Democratic about a Coup.

Doug and Alan were blindsided by, in my personal opinion, a well planned sabotage by the Companies. Yes, the Companies. And their surrogate shills who now negotiate on the SAG Board on their behalf.

I feel really bad for Alan and Doug and the SAG members who never had a say. Were never allowed to vote about their own future.

Truly a sad day at SAG.

D • on Jan 27, 2009 6:35 pm

So now we see, not only are the U4S’s for qualified voting- and apparently none of us qualify to vote on our own contract. But they are also for qualified speaking- and no one, not even our own President, aside from the two duly appointed, (very important that word appointed) not duly elected lawyers are qualified to speak for us. And this is going to bring us together? Wow, are these bobo’s in for a surprise. I can’t wait until the next election, MF all the way baby!

399 • on Jan 27, 2009 6:39 pm

What a self-serving pantload. I’m actually embarrassed for him for having written that and made it public.

Anonymous • on Jan 27, 2009 6:45 pm

Alan Rosenberg is truly deranged. 30 hours of filibustering later, he complains “that where the significant minority would have had an opportunity to voice its opinion and where Mr. Allen would have had a chance to face his accusers and address their concerns. Instead, this drastic action was accomplished by “written assent”, the most undemocratic provision allowed by our Constitution.” What? What planet does he live on. He didn’t allow these opinions to be heard. Time for him to go now.

Fielding Mellish • on Jan 27, 2009 6:45 pm

The “outrage” over Doug Allen’s firing would be laughable if it weren’t so sad. The guy did every possible thing wrong, from posting press releases that undercut the very goals of a strike to the fatal blow, his filibuster meant to silence public criticism of the job he botched so badly. If this were a screenplay, the twist would be that Doug Allen was an AMPTM patsy all this time and Alan, realizing that he is never going to work as an actor in this town again as an actor, his handler. What better way to break up the union than pursue an agenda so bullheadedly that they turn the rest of the town against them?

Jerry • on Jan 27, 2009 6:57 pm

So at a time when the guild desperately needs to unite itself, Rosenberg decides to send a letter bashing roughly 53 percent of the board? Way to take the high road, Mr President. If you’re that upset, maybe it’s time you stepped down so that cooler heads can get the membership through a crucial contract negotiation.

John • on Jan 27, 2009 7:04 pm

Alan, you are pathetic.

YOu are next. We are coming for you. The gall of this guy is incredible. I can hardly believe the idiotic things that spew out of his mouth. What is more tragic is how people still support this guy.

You knew this was coming, you screwed it up, you are in the minority, and soon you will be gone.

Lenny the Pug! • on Jan 27, 2009 7:09 pm

Forgive my igornance, but I can’t seem to peel away the literary flatuance in Alan’s statement to make sense of any of the points he is trying to make. It seems to me that both Doug Allen and Alan Rosenberg had countless chances to quell this internal discord long before this drastic action was resorted to. Therefore, I can only chalk up this rant to that of an embittered, resentful and ultimatly failed leader who is finally grasping the magnitude of his defective (now lame) Presidency.

DGA Director • on Jan 27, 2009 7:17 pm

Oi!
This guy does not go quietly into the night. Has anyone on his committee ever worked on a webisode? Do they know the fractions of pennies these shows are made for? Rosenberg’s plan would send the residual bar broke if it ever got adopted.

Residuals on internet downloaded shows from another medium I can see, they keep sites like Hulu and Veoh alive. But wasn’t Rosenberg’s team already offered this and rejected it?

let’s get back to work so we don’t all lose our houses and keep the drama and theatrics for the screen. Actors do not want their peers HATING THEM for creating a strike that will punish not the producers — just everyone else in the industry.

btlteamster • on Jan 27, 2009 7:20 pm

Beg to differ Alan, if the new negotiating team is offered some “plum” that was unattainable, and if the new team stops some massive rollback…then the new team has served the members of SAG well. For a long list of reasons your tactics were a failure. This statement by you is so bitter and does nothing to bring your union together. If the new negotiating team has success…in horrible economic times…then all SAG members win. If you REALLY CARE about all SAG members, then wish the new team the best, and hope they can do the membership proud.

Anonymous • on Jan 27, 2009 7:30 pm

Hello national politics. Welcome to SAG.

Scott • on Jan 27, 2009 7:31 pm

Thank you Alan for all your hard work and for fighting the good fight. It’s a Thankless job — but one you keep fighting for. You are a true inspiration. Hang in there, the truth will prevail!!!

j.r. • on Jan 27, 2009 7:33 pm

Sheesh.

The whole lot of these administrators need to be flushed out, from top to bottom. SAG can’t complain about the studios, producers, or anyone else at the moment, because they aren’t able to keep their own house tidy. They’ve lost themselves fighting over leaves, when they need to be tending to the entire forest.

If the actors were to start approaching their business as “a business”, they’d recognize they need to consolidate/merge/absorb AFTRA, clean up the store, get the rats out of the kitchen so the studios see they’re leaner, meaner and truly the only game in town. At the moment, why would the studio deal with actors union A when actors union B is offering much of the same product for a lower price?

zackery • on Jan 27, 2009 7:46 pm

It’s a hostile takeover. Where does the membership fit in anymore? Affected Member Voting was unpopular so these people found another way to take the vote and the UNION from the membership.

Time to move on. The board voted and the majority has ruled. That’s democracy. Everyone needs to get over it and focus on the important thing in the short term: Work.

The Alan’s strategy and tactics clearly haven’t worked. They’ve been rejected. I can’t fault Rosenberg’s loyalty to his friends and colleagues but there’s no room or time for a pity party. Lead, follow or get out of the way. Thanks for your service, but you’ve had your try. Now it’s someone time for another approach.

Lori Hughes • on Jan 27, 2009 7:51 pm

When will SAG be free from Alan Rosenberg’s rhetoric? I think it’s time for the SAG board to use some more of that “written assent” magic on our President, I mean soon to be ex-president. 7 months in limbo land without a contract is enough! Make a deal so that our union can heal.

Yosemite • on Jan 27, 2009 7:53 pm

2 things I wonder about, Did David White have a hand in coming up with the “written assent” and was the job of NED payment for it?